Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Speak, Shriek, or Squeak! Whatever Technique You Seek in Critique of the Isogeneic Freak.


whatever...

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Not really, no.  Learning how to canvass has very little to do with political science.  You have, on multiple occasions, dismissed my discipline as if you have a superior intuition on politics.  There's an aspect of that that is true - there are political scientists out there that don't give a shit about politics and just enjoy problem-solving - but I've grown tired of your self-imagined superior attitude towards the discipline.  You do not have a better idea about politics because you've worked on some campaigns.  You are not aware of the tonnage of research that's devoted to trying to figure out everything from decision-making of leadership to general state-building to the behavior of the electorate, and that's just a start.  Acting like this is because people don't go out in the field - when field research is a huge-ass part of the discipline and the basis of how you and everybody else acquires such knowledge - is absurd and offensive to countless of my colleagues, advisors, and yes, myself.

Let's play. 

So for starters, when us field workers lie? All the time? Because the data people have no fucking clue how to talk to someone? 

I think it's a huge failure of the field to not train people to actually speak with anyone, and I always found it disturbing when I said to the data folks that people want to kill us and they just said, "No, no, make sure you contact them x times per week" when they were terrified to ever pick up a phone or knock on a door and do it themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's why I've always said I hate the LSAT. People can knock it out of the park, and then not say five words to another person. That's not going to make you be a good lawyer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So for starters, when us field workers lie? All the time? Because the data people have no fucking clue how to talk to someone? 

I don't understand this line of questioning.  I am a field worker, often, and I never said they lied.  There's also no real difference between field workers and "data people."  This conflict is in your head.

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think it's a huge failure of the field to not train people to actually speak with anyone

Again, political science does not necessarily have anything to do with interacting with people.  There are cohorts that can construct formal models I could never dream of even conceiving, and they couldn't hold a conversation with the average person for more than 30 seconds.  Am I supposed to discount their contribution because they can't talk to people?  You seem to be fixated on how poly sci is taught in undergrad.  I agree, that could and should be vastly improved.  I've devoted considerable hours of my life trying to do just that.  But people skills was pretty low on my list of priorities.  If you have such a problem with "the date folks," then speak up and explain why.  Or just do your job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

If the "courts," or state prosecutors, have good reason to prosecute Trump, sure go at it.  And again, if there are legit reasons to prosecute others in his administration or family, that's not what I'm talking about.  I just think it's a bad idea for a president, or her DOJ, to prosecute her predecessor.  Also, I suspect your naming of NYC italian mafia families is a bit antiquated.  It's like talking about Genovese, Gambino, Anastasia as if they haven't been dead for decades.

I'm not sure I follow your point. Trump has openly and aggressively used the Office of the President to enrich himself and attack his enemies. Are you saying that it needs to be left to state AG's to bring charges against him? Can they even do that?

Further, Biden will be asked whether Trump should be prosecuted for his crimes. With the inevitable follow-up being "would you direct your AG to pursue charges."

Biden can politic it and hedge, but I think the way to go is clearly a "Lock him up!" chant. (Maybe not literally) But I can't imagine anything more dangerous than the Trumps skipping away with their ill-gotten gains to be the faces of the Republican party. That is a horrifying thing to contemplate, for reasons already discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Are you saying that it needs to be left to state AG's to bring charges against him?

Yes.

1 minute ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Biden can politic it and hedge, but I think the way to go is clearly a "Lock him up!" chant.

I don't think that's particularly useful, but sure, I'm not objecting to any campaign tactic.

I'm not really interested in having a prolonged argument on the idea of a president prosecuting his predecessor.  If you disagree with that, ok.  Are Trump's more egregious than most presidents.....meh, that's a tough call for me.  If you feel differently, fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I don't understand this line of questioning.  I am a field worker, often, and I never said they lied.  There's also no real difference between field workers and "data people."  This conflict is in your head.

No it's not, and it's exactly why many of my close friends who worked on campaigns and/or in elected officials' offices left. For good. 

And yes, there is a clear difference, why can you not see it? 

I always found it funny when you had to pull, yes the data people, over and make them phone bank. Most couldn't do anything other than read the script I wrote for them, and even that was.....interesting. 

Quote

Again, political science does not necessarily have anything to do with interacting with people.  There are cohorts that can construct formal models I could never dream of even conceiving and couldn't hold a conversation for more than 30 seconds.  Am I supposed to discount their contribution because they can't talk to people?  You seem to be fixated on how poly sci is taught in undergrad.  I agree, that could and should be vastly improved.  I've devoted considerable hours of my life trying to do just that.  But people skills was pretty low on my list of priorities.  If you have such a problem with "the date folks," then speak up and explain why.  Or just do your job.

But politics, at its core, has everything to do with interacting with people. I'm not discounting them. But they need to also be trained and be able to train their students in how to talk to people. Otherwise they're setting them up to fail. 

We've spoken bluntly. Selling weed and, well other shit, taught me more about face to face politics than any professor ever even tried to teach me. 

That's a problem with the field, and to deny it is to look away from something that needs to be improved. 

I'm not shitting on your field, because it was mine too. I want it to be better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

74% say country is on wrong track, an all-time low in seven years of national Monmouth polling.

Yet, in the very same poll, Trump's approval/disapproval is 42/54.  So (at least) 16% of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track, but are voting for Trump anyway.  The Republican Party has been reduced to a personality cult. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden will be asked whether Trump should be prosecuted for his crimes. With the inevitable follow-up being "would you direct your AG to pursue charges."

the constitutional answer is that it's not for him to bring charges under separation of powers and federalist principles.  his professional opinion should therefore be deference to professional prosecutors. his electoral platform should be that we do not threaten political opponents with prosecution. his personal opinion should remain unstated as irrelevant.

 

16% of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track, but are voting for Trump anyway.

i think the interpretation might be that the increase in republican wrong-direction is not blaming the president but blaming antifa-backed & soros-funded protesters whose orneriness does not arise from actual grievances but from china and the WHO and others who seek to exploit our shiftless, prevaricating, pliant, trifling worker subcastes in the next election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's why I've always said I hate the LSAT. People can knock it out of the park, and then not say five words to another person. That's not going to make you be a good lawyer. 

When I was considering going to law school I took the LSAT a couple of times, and first time around I go so nervous I forgot I knew how to read.

Looks like the GOP is revving their engines to get the party started on investigating Biden's corruption. I think they missed the boat on this though, the protests and Covid roaring back soon are going to suck all the air out of this.

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/02/867688291/senate-republicans-launch-committee-investigations-involving-joe-biden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No it's not, and it's exactly why many of my close friends who worked on campaigns and/or in elected officials' offices left. For good. 

A lot of my close friends went back to school to learn econometrics and now have very high positions.  Your anecdote isn't any better than mine.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I always found it funny when you had to pull, yes the data people, over and make them phone bank. Most couldn't do anything other than read the script I wrote for them, and even that was.....interesting. 

This just seems like you're making fun of "geeks" at this point.  You're not cooler and certainly don't have a better understanding of politics because you have better social skills.  Get the fuck over yourself.

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But politics, at its core, has everything to do with interacting with people. I'm not discounting them. But they need to also be trained and be able to train their students in how to talk to people. Otherwise they're setting them up to fail. 

What?  First of all, I don't know how you "train people" to interact.  I guess there is some class out there that does that, but it's certainly not a poly sci course, and never should be.  The epistemology of political science should be focused on the understanding of politics.  It's not an apprenticeship in being a campaign operative.

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's a problem with the field, and to deny it is to look away from something that needs to be improved. 

I'm not shitting on your field, because it was mine too. I want it to be better. 

No, you're suggestions reflect a dudebro that wants to denigrate my field because thinking you're just smarter makes you feel better about yourself.  I am very open to suggestions on improving the discipline, but all you have is "teach them how to talk to people," which is both dumb and pointless as an endeavor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, sologdin said:

16% of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track, but are voting for Trump anyway.

 

i think the interpretation might be that the increase in republican wrong-direction is not blaming the president but blaming antifa-backed & soros-funded protesters whose orneriness does not arise from actual grievances but from china and the WHO and others who seek to exploit our shiftless, prevaricating, pliant, trifling worker subcastes in the next election.

Oh, I'm sure.  But the level of excuse-making for Trump is just astonishing.  He ran in 2016 on being the man solely able to solve America's problems, and now 3.5 years later the economy is crippled, debt and unemployment are skyrocketing, race relations are at a 50 year low, and still huge numbers of people want more of the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Oh, I'm sure.  But the level of excuse-making for Trump is just astonishing.  He ran in 2016 on being the man solely able to solve America's problems, and now 3.5 years later the economy is crippled, debt and unemployment are skyrocketing, race relations are at a 50 year low, and still huge numbers of people want more of the same. 

Well for a lot of them the only thing that matters is the bolded. A Mission Accomplished, if you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

W. Bush out with a statement filled with nice words and last paragraph that could almost read like an endorsement of Biden if you squinted; but nothing explicit at all. And neither Biden or Trump are mentioned by name.

If he really wanted to make a difference, and give himself a big boost in the history books in the process, he'd endorse Biden straight-up. But he'll never do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh, DMC. You always want to take a friendly exchange and make it a fight. I'm going for a jog. I'll touch base with you in a half hour or so. 

ETA: Fuck, I just cracked my first beer open. Screw it I'm putting it in my water bottle. It's not so hot now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

When I was considering going to law school I took the LSAT a couple of times, and first time around I go so nervous I forgot I knew how to read.

Looks like the GOP is revving their engines to get the party started on investigating Biden's corruption. I think they missed the boat on this though, the protests and Covid roaring back soon are going to suck all the air out of this.

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/02/867688291/senate-republicans-launch-committee-investigations-involving-joe-biden

I expect Trump will announce a grand jury has been struck to investigate Biden's crimes, and before the election day Barr will bring charges against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But the level of excuse-making for Trump is just astonishing.

I don't think that 16% number is too surprising.  Frankly I'd expect it to be higher in this day and age.  Reliable Trump respondents are going to rationalize away that even in good times.

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You always want to take a friendly exchange and make it a fight.

I never intended for it to be a friendly exchange.  I'm sick of you shitting on how I make a living and expressing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...